Did you support the invasion of Iraq....why....and do those reasons still exist?

Question

...or did they ever really exist?

how do we know the terrorist were Saudis? Did we see them? Isn't it just a little suspect that the government "knew" who they were within hours of the attacks?

Bubba - so, if the hijackers WERE Saudis...why did Bush invade Iraq?

john-_d_a... - so, you'd be willing to have the US go around the world insisting that everybody live and believe as we do? Suppose the tables were turned?

allusian - did you know that Kuwait was part of Iraq, but broke away with the help of the US and Iraq's "invasion" was more like the north telling the south they couldn't secede?

Answer 1

Yes.

Because all people deserve the opportunity to decide their own future. If it was up to me we would be in Sudan too.

Yes, those reasons still exist.

Yes, the reasons have always existed. Thomas Jefferson was the first President to declare war against an Islamic nation for their support of terrorism on the high seas.

The United States has always fought against oppression and should never have supported oppression.

In political reality as long as there are Democrats in politics, the pro-slavery, anti-civil rights, pro-oppression, anti-freedom for Iraq party, the United States will support oppressors like Saddam Hussein.

Answer 2

I never supported the invasion of Iraq, I took it upon myself to learn about Iraq's history and culture during "Dessert Storm" in 1992. Thus I had and still have a clear understanding that the US was looking for a reason to invade and was just riding the coat tails of 9/11.


Still support the effort in Afghanistan.

PS "John" Reagan gave armsand money to Iran, Saddam AND Bin Laden. Never knew he was a Democrat....

Here is a good link:

Answer 3

I never supported the war because there was no credible evidence that Iraq still had a nuclear weapons program, and I did not think it was worth going to war over poison gas weapons, because they are not more of a threat than ordinary explosives. Also there was never any evidence that Iraq was connected to 9/11.
We identified the hijackers soon after 9/11 because we had a list of passengers on the plane and traced their activities back in time. see FBI press release from Sept 27th 2001.
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/092701hjpic.htm

Answer 4

I don’t, but I think sadam should have been removed. Not because he did crimes to his own people but for American economy. This should have been done with out going to war.

There are so many people that say we should go to war because sadam was killing his own people and he broke the UN resolution. But that doesn’t make any sense if the same president pressures on congress to not pass resolution 106 recognition of Armenian genocide. The Ottoman Empire did the same thing in 1915 against the Armenian people. So what is the moral in this? Oh I see the Turkey is our alley.

Answer 5

No. I thought Iraq should have been a lower priority, an that more should have been done immediately after 9/11 to deter future attacks. The unrelated wrapping up of loose ends from a war 10 years earlier hardly seemed worthwhile.

And, yes, those reasons no longer exist. Al Qeda is now heavily involved in Iraq, and any hope of detering future terrorism would be undermined by a 'loss' there.

Answer 6

For Convictionist:

FYI, Congress gave Bush the authorization to go into Iraq.

Not sure where you are getting your information from.

Having said that, personally I don't think the US should have gone there, but then I am not the President.

15 of the 18 terrorists were from Saudi Arabi.

What say you?

Answer 7

What I know about it is that Iraq violated the first Iraq war treaty on 17 counts. Sadam was killing thousands of his own people. The news doesn't show that footage anymore. Anyway, that's the primary reason for having to go back. In WW I (I know, I know, just bear with me here), Germany violated its treaty as well, but no one did anything. And that's why there was a WW II.

Answer 8

Yes, check out the links.....
I was a machineguuner in the USMC 96-00, Before being deployed to Okinawa in Jan. 1998, we received anthrax vaccinations, Iraq was heating up, UN inspectors kicked out...
We were close to attacking in 1998, is that an example of "bad" neocons, or good expeditionary infantry Marines?


http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/libact103198.pdf

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

Saddam Hussein had it coming, it was up to him to disarm!
It was up to him to be truth full.
Saddam lied the U.S. into war , not W!!!!!!

Answer 9

Yes

Iraq broke the UN resolution, they gassed their own people. It was our moral duty to free the people of Iraq. I would have done it more forcefully, but I still agree with what the President did.

Answer 10

It wasn't an illegal war, because the President was given the vote to go to war. That is the only legal definition of an "illegal war".

Yes and No.

I supported it because of Hussein's violation the UN charter he agreed to after HIS invasion of Kuwait. At this very violation, the UN should have taken action IMMEDIATELY, and they failed to do their job.

I also supported it because Hussein himself said that he financially rewarded the families of terrorists who blew themselves up and took innocents with them. So let's not pretend that he was "innocent" as far as terrorism is concerned.

However, the planning was poor. The execution was poor. The timing was poor.

Saddam Hussein should have been taken care of during the first Gulf War. BUT since the UN decided "No", the US had to leave him there.

The only people to blame are the UN, for not taking care of him during the first Gulf War.

President Bush and his advisors are to blame for poor planning, timing and execution.

The Iraq war should have taken place AFTER Bin Laden was found and taken out.

If you want someone to blame for the War itself, blame Congress. They voted for it.